Miguel Almirón

[MrRaspberryJam]

1 minute ago, Armchair Pundit said:

Would miss Miggy's smile and enthusiasm, in terms of effort he's a model pro really isn't he.

 

He only smiles when he's blazed a shot over the bar from 8 yards.

[mattypnufc]

Just now, Shearergol said:

 

Depends on your stance on this. Some people would be happy to keep our players.

I'm happy to keep Tripps, however decent money comes in for him, 33 year old, it'd be a worthwhile sale.

 

Miggy on the otherhand, £30m, free's up around £150m for transfers.  Its a no brainer.

[Guest reefatoon]

1 minute ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

 

He only smiles when he's blazed a shot over the bar from 8 yards.

Aye he’s charmed a few with that old trick 

[loki679]

He's probably at the peak of his value and he's only got one foot so I'd be OK with us cashing in and getting a better replacement. 

 

RW is a position that we should have upgraded on last summer. 

[nufcnick]

15 minutes ago, mattypnufc said:

 

Miggy on the otherhand, £30m, free's up around £150m for transfers.  Its a no brainer.

Not quite £150m as you need to take wages and agents fees into account, £30m would allow a spend of about 2 £50m players on £120k a week each over 5 years.

 

 

Edited January 23 by nufcnick

[FLUMPO235]

1 minute ago, nufcnick said:

Not quite £150m as you need to take wages into account, £30m would allow a spend of about 2 £50m players on £120k a week each over 5 years.

If you can’t be bothered don’t worry. But could you explain how that works out with the maths involved? 

[nufcnick]

16 minutes ago, FLUMPO235 said:

If you can’t be bothered don’t worry. But could you explain how that works out with the maths involved? 

transfer fees
2x 50m = £100m / 5 = £20m (per year amortisation)

Wages per year 

£120k x 52 =£6.2m x2 = £12.4 

Total of £32.4m 

 

miggy sale

£30m  transfer fee received (no amortisation left as over 5 years at club) 

wages saved £3.1m per year (£60k per week) 

 

 

Edited January 23 by nufcnick

[thomas]

Jesus Christ 

[Kid Icarus]

I hate each and every one of you

[AyeDubbleYoo]

If it’s that easy to spread the cost of big signings you would think you could do it without selling players. 
 

Surely FFP has to be more sophisticated than selling 30m allows you to spend 150m? 
 

I am by no means an accountant

 

 

Edited January 23 by AyeDubbleYoo

[TRon]

2 hours ago, 54 said:

Am I the only one who thinks £30m is a fair price for him? Given he has 14 Premier League goals and 3 assists in a season and a half, and is a regular for a club that got in the Champions League last season.

 

If he was worth £30m then surely someone outside of SA would have offered us £26m at least. He's verging on 30 years old by the way, you might want to factor that in.

[nufcnick]

11 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

If it’s that easy to spread the cost of big signings you would think you could do it without selling players. 

It is that easy and it’s the way it has worked since 2013, the problem is you can only spend what you earn allowing for a loss of up to £35m per year, our problem is we have started from such a low base due to lack of investment, meaning we’re maxed out on our amortisation and losses per year just trying to catch up, a sale of £30m player that has been here over 5 years(so no amortisation) means that £30m comes straight off in one big lump, academy players are also pure profit when sold(that’s what allowed Chelsea to spend so much)

 

 

Edited January 23 by nufcnick

[simonsays]

3 minutes ago, nufcnick said:

It is that easy, the problem is you can only spend what you earn allowing for a loss of up to £35m per year, our problem is we have started from such a low base due to lack of investment, meaning we’re maxed out on our amortisation and losses per year just trying to catch up, a sale of £30m player that has been here over 5 years(so no amortisation) means that £30m comes straight off in one big lump 

Surely Miggy's sale would only fund that for one season though, no?  We would need to find other income in future seasons to continue to pay the bill.

[nufcnick]

13 minutes ago, simonsays said:

Surely Miggy's sale would only fund that for one season though, no?  We would need to find other income in future seasons to continue to pay the bill.

Thats right and that’s where the adidas sponsorship comes in next season, we also have, Big Jo’s amortisation dropping off the rolling 3 year period, the problem everyone is running into now is the P&S figure hasn’t changed since 2013, so while selling a player for £30m a few years ago would balance your books for almost the whole 3 year rolling period, now selling a £30m player only balances the books for a season. 

 

 

Edited January 23 by nufcnick

[Displayname]

Yes selling players is a short term fix. But a fix nonetheless if we are expecting sponsorship deals to pick up.

[Jack27]

Would argue selling players is a necessity if you want to take the next step

[Sean]

Not gonna lie, but I'll be gutted if we end up selling Trippier but keep Miggy. I've got no hate for him, but come on man.

[Chris_R]

1 hour ago, mattypnufc said:

 

Miggy on the otherhand, £30m, free's up around £150m for transfers.  Its a no brainer.

 

That's not how maths works.

 

 

It only frees up THIS YEAR's portion of £150m towards transfers. We'd then need to sell someone for £30m next year, and for the 3 years after that, to balance the books for the £150m total.  The subsequent years costs don't just magically disappear into thin air.

 

On the other side, if we've already amortised previous years' fees into the future (very likely), we may be selling Almiron to pay for previous spends.

 

What we need to do is grow revenue. Which of course we're looking to do all the time now, but that's the cure long-term, but in the mean time we've got to cut our cloth accordingly.

 

[The Prophet]

Sounds like be doesn't want to go. We need Tindall to make life uncomfortable for him.

[TRon]

13 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Sounds like be doesn't want to go. We need Tindall to make life uncomfortable for him.

 

I doubt it will be a problem, just add a couple of zeros to his wage packet in Saudi. He'll still turn out to be better value than fuckwits like Henderson.

[thomas]

15 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

That's not how maths works.

 

 

It only frees up THIS YEAR's portion of £150m towards transfers. We'd then need to sell someone for £30m next year, and for the 3 years after that, to balance the books for the £150m total.  The subsequent years costs don't just magically disappear into thin air.

 

On the other side, if we've already amortised previous years' fees into the future (very likely), we may be selling Almiron to pay for previous spends.

 

What we need to do is grow revenue. Which of course we're looking to do all the time now, but that's the cure long-term, but in the mean time we've got to cut our cloth accordingly.

 

 

mate, that's what the £50m players are for, to keep pushing it forward another year. you sell them and buy 2 £75m players, and so on. if i'm mathing correctly here [shuffles beads on an abacus] yep it's an infinite money glitch.

 

 

Edited January 23 by thomas

[Newcastle Fan]

Reminds me of when Arry tried to sell Benjani

[The College Dropout]

2 hours ago, nufcnick said:

transfer fees
2x 50m = £100m / 5 = £20m (per year amortisation)

Wages per year 

£120k x 52 =£6.2m x2 = £12.4 

Total of £32.4m 

 

miggy sale

£30m  transfer fee received (no amortisation left as over 5 years at club) 

wages saved £3.1m per year (£60k per week) 

 

 

 

This is not true. 
 

contract extensions further extend the amortisation cost. As in - it becomes spread over a longer term. 
 

Miggy still has an amortised cost.  It’s just low at this point. I’ve shared the KDB example elsewhere on this forum. He still has an amortised cost. 

[nufcnick]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This is not true. 
 

contract extensions further extend the amortisation cost. As in - it becomes spread over a longer term. 
 

Miggy still has an amortised cost.  It’s just low at this point. I’ve shared the KDB example elsewhere on this forum. He still has an amortised cost. 

Yeah sorry that’s right, it’s around £4.1m left, there are a few other factors as well, so it would be more like one £40m player and 1 £30m player 

[The College Dropout]

58 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

That's not how maths works.

 

 

It only frees up THIS YEAR's portion of £150m towards transfers. We'd then need to sell someone for £30m next year, and for the 3 years after that, to balance the books for the £150m total.  The subsequent years costs don't just magically disappear into thin air.

 

On the other side, if we've already amortised previous years' fees into the future (very likely), we may be selling Almiron to pay for previous spends.

 

What we need to do is grow revenue. Which of course we're looking to do all the time now, but that's the cure long-term, but in the mean time we've got to cut our cloth accordingly.

 

This is correct.  The key is driving long-term revenues. Gate receipts, prize money, sponsorship, TV rights.  
 

You can’t just keep flipping your best players.  
 

Where Spurs succeeded is they started qualifying for the CL regularly (and they built the stadium). The revenues from that drives everything else up.  Where Leicester failed is they didn’t qualify for the CL consistently.  There’s a few sliding door moments for Leicester but not getting CL in atleast one of those 2 seasons under Rodger’s are 2 of them.  They did nearly everything else how it should be done.